W.H.: Defense bill 'micromanages'

A move by House Republicans to reauthorize the war on terror is unwise because it could foster perceptions that the U.S. is in an endless war with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and similar groups, the White House argues in a legislative position paper obtained by POLITICO.

The aggressively-worded White House memorandum circulated on Capitol Hill blasts a defense bill backed by the House GOP as an unprecedented effort to “micromanage” the handling of war on terror captives and argues the measure would harm national security.

Story Continued Below

“Never before has the Congress sought to so limit and micromanage the military and other elements of our national security community in matters as basic as a detainee transfer; congressional limits like these are a misguided setback to national security, because they take away options to address a continuing and evolving threat,” the White House said in the paper.

Most of the detainee and war on terror provisions were crafted by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). However, the bill became even more assertive on the House floor, after an amendment was adopted by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) aimed at requiring all terrorism suspects to be tried in military tribunals.

McKeon contends the language simply reaffirms the use-of-force authorization and adopts a definition of who may be held prisoner that was advanced by the Obama administration in court. Critics say the provision could authorize an “endless war” and give the president the green light to attack any country that contains even a small number of Al Qaeda members or supporters.

“Legislative efforts to update these authorities, however well intentioned they may be, would change horses midstream with no discernible benefits, and would risk both inviting waves of new litigation and sending mixed messages,” the White House said in the memo. “Now is not the right time to reconfigure a legal framework which, generally speaking, has been approved by the judiciary.”

The White House also took aim at claims that the bill simply restates current law. “The proposed language does not simply confirm the President’s existing authorities based on the 2001 AUMF. Rather, it seeks to update those authorities, and could be interpreted by the courts as an effort to override current relevant domestic and international law,” the White House position paper says. “The proposed language could unsettle rather than clarify the law.”